"All direct acceptance players at the time of the entry deadline who do not play will receive a 0-pointer in their ranking.

A player who is out of competition for 30 or more days, due to a verified injury, will not receive any penalties".

The entry deadline is 6 weeks before the start of the tournament so if some player gets injured in the previous 6 weeks and can't play the tournament but it's not a 1 month injury (Nadal-Rotterdam) he receives a penalty in the rankings.
It's a complete non sense. It's not right to penalize someone who can't play a tournament because of an injury.
I guess the ATP wanted to avoid players faking injuries and withdrawing from tournaments in the last minute but this rule is completely unfair to players with legit injuries. If someone is injured and he can verify it, he shouldn't be fined despite the date of the injury.

And adding more fuel, Federer withdrew from Dubai in the previous week alleguing a back injury that didn't let him play at 100% but Federer didn't receive a 0 pointer penalty in the rankings.

Why? I guess it's because he showed up at the players party in Dubai and the ATP sees it as a promoting event activity. I can't think of any other reason but I would like to know if there is one.
This is also ridiculous. We know Federer resides and practices in Dubai for a good part of the season but the ATP cannot expect that players who live thousands of miles away go all the way to Dubai just for a promoting event activity. Bottom line is Federer didn't receive a penalty in the rankings because he resides in Dubai whereas Nadal and Verdasco received a penalty because they live too far away from Dubai.

This rule means that Nadal, Verdasco and Roddick (he also got a 0 pointer but it was his own decision not to play in Dubai) cannot gain ranking points from their best 4 ATP 500 results, only from their best 3, because that 0 pointer will not drop until next year.

Davis Cup results also count in the ATP 500 category rankings wise so it's possible that Davis Cup ranking points are not countable for these players.

There is also another 0 pointer penalty for players who don't play an ATP 500 event after the US Open. I find this rule ridiculous as well. Why make it mandatory after the US Open (when all players are more tired) and not before? So if Nadal, Verdasco or Roddick don't play an ATP 500 event after the US Open they will get two 0 point penalties and only their best 2 results in 500 events will count in the rankings, even if they played more ATP 500 events than other players before the US Open.

The ATP wanted to promote these 500 events but the rules they made for that are a complete and unfair mess. This is probably the last legacy of De Villiers. Does the ATP even consider the players opinions when making these rules? I doubt so. Players should give a step forward, voice their opinions and have more weight in decisions. ATP is nothing without players. What is the Players Council for?

I agree it is a stupid rule, but I think 0 points 500 tournament will be dropped if he has 4 better 500 series result. It says "4 best 500 tournaments".

It is ridiculous though that Federer didn't get 0 pointer.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's not the case. The 0 pointers remain until next year even if there are 4 better 500 series results, that's what the penalty is about.

i.e. if Nadal plays Rotterdam, Barcelona, Hamburg and Davis Cup, only his best 3 results will count. And if he doesn't play a 500 event after the US Open, only his best 2 results will count until the drop date of those penalties.

The only thing I'm not sure about is why Federer didn't get the penalty but I can't find any other reason. The rest of the post is clear.

Click to expand...

Federer didn't play Rotterdam and Nadal did. So Federer can allege that his injury has been verifiable since the end of the Aussie Open. Nadal played a tournament less then a month ago and was injured there so he cannot claim the same as Federer. It's the only reason I can think of.

Rules are rules of course and I don't think they're bad ones per say. It's hard for tournys when players pull out even if they have legitimate reasons. It sucks for Rafa and Verdasco, but the rules were there before they pulled out.

Nadal could obviously appeal the 0 pointer. He has the means to do that.

Currently, however, Davis Cup points can't replace a 0 pointer only a bad 500 result. At best he'll have two 500 tournys count if he doesn't play after the USO.

My initial reaction to the after the USO rule was that it was silly, but those tournaments need participants as well. There isn't a reason that they should be penalized for when they occur.

As I said in an earlier thread, Rafa should enter Valencia. It's close to home and close to Paris. Not much travel involved. In addition, he doesn't have to do incredibly well there if their Davis Cup results have been good. That way he'll have three good results to go on.

Federer only had three 500 tournys scheduled before he exited Dubai. He might schedule a new one now, but I don't think the top players are that focused on playing them.

Unfortunately that's not the case. The 0 pointers remain until next year even if there are 4 better 500 series results, that's what the penalty is about.

i.e. if Nadal plays Rotterdam, Barcelona, Hamburg and Davis Cup, only his best 3 results will count. And if he doesn't play a 500 event after the US Open, only his best 2 results will count until the drop date of those penalties.

Click to expand...

Only best 3 counts really? I've never heard this before but if it's true then it's very harsh

Unfair and nonsensical rule. I hope the players who are on the ATP board can do something about it. This situation when players did exactly the same thing and some of them will be penalized whereas others won't shows the absurdity of it and the necessity to review it ASAP.

I must admit it's quite confusing but it doesn't seem fair that you can't count 5.

Anyway I have faith that Rafa's team know what they're doing and maybe they're also trying to cut back on tournaments and this was one way to do it. Good idea to play in Valencia. On clay and close to home.

I must admit it's quite confusing but it doesn't seem fair that you can't count 5.

Anyway I have faith that Rafa's team know what they're doing and maybe they're also trying to cut back on tournaments and this was one way to do it. Good idea to play in Valencia. On clay and close to home.

Click to expand...

It's a hardcourt tourny now. Still it's not like he has to do that well there if their Davis Cup team has been doing well.

Nadal is on the player council, as well as Federer and other players. Although we make it as though both Nadal and Federer hate each other, they really don't. I think Federer would find a way to help out Nadal, considering both of them have a considerable amount of clout.

The rule IS unfair...the ATP forces them to play too much tennis they should shorten the calendor and then this rule would be fairer.

Don't know why Federer didn't get 0 pointed and Nadal did probablu is a reason that we have over looked.

But this won't affect the out come of #1 spot so dont know why people are getting so excited about it!

Click to expand...

It has to be because Roger didn't play Rotterdam. Because of that he can say that he has a nagging back injury that has lasted for more then a month. Nadal can't say that because he was injured in Rotterdam less then a month ago.

The rule is really stupid IMO, but I guess the ATP feels like they need these measures to keep top players from lying about injuries so they can go hang out on the beach or whatever. There may have been players in the past who did this, but it is really unfortunate that it affects a hardworking champ like Nadal.

"All direct acceptance players at the time of the entry deadline who do not play will receive a 0-pointer in their ranking.

A player who is out of competition for 30 or more days, due to a verified injury, will not receive any penalties".

The entry deadline is 6 weeks before the start of the tournament so if some player gets injured in the previous 6 weeks and can't play the tournament but it's not a 1 month injury (Nadal-Rotterdam) he receives a penalty in the rankings.
It's a complete non sense. It's not right to penalize someone who can't play a tournament because of an injury.
I guess the ATP wanted to avoid players faking injuries and withdrawing from tournaments in the last minute but this rule is completely unfair to players with legit injuries. If someone is injured and he can verify it, he shouldn't be fined despite the date of the injury.

And adding more fuel, Federer withdrew from Dubai in the previous week alleguing a back injury that didn't let him play at 100% but Federer didn't receive a 0 pointer penalty in the rankings.

Why? I guess it's because he showed up at the players party in Dubai and the ATP sees it as a promoting event activity. I can't think of any other reason but I would like to know if there is one.
This is also ridiculous. We know Federer resides and practices in Dubai for a good part of the season but the ATP cannot expect that players who live thousands of miles away go all the way to Dubai just for a promoting event activity. Bottom line is Federer didn't receive a penalty in the rankings because he resides in Dubai whereas Nadal and Verdasco received a penalty because they live too far away from Dubai.

This rule means that Nadal, Verdasco and Roddick (he also got a 0 pointer but it was his own decision not to play in Dubai) cannot gain ranking points from their best 4 ATP 500 results, only from their best 3, because that 0 pointer will not drop until next year.

Davis Cup results also count in the ATP 500 category rankings wise so it's possible that Davis Cup ranking points are not countable for these players.

There is also another 0 pointer penalty for players who don't play an ATP 500 event after the US Open. I find this rule ridiculous as well. Why make it mandatory after the US Open (when all players are more tired) and not before? So if Nadal, Verdasco or Roddick don't play an ATP 500 event after the US Open they will get two 0 point penalties and only their best 2 results in 500 events will count in the rankings, even if they played more ATP 500 events than other players before the US Open.

The ATP wanted to promote these 500 events but the rules they made for that are a complete and unfair mess. This is probably the last legacy of De Villiers. Does the ATP even consider the players opinions when making these rules? I doubt so. Players should give a step forward, voice their opinions and have more weight in decisions. ATP is nothing without players. What is the Players Council for?

Click to expand...

Well, the site doesn't even list an "ATP 500" category on Federer's ledger right now, probably because he hasn't played one yet, so I imagine that when he does play one, they'll update his rankings page to include that category, and at such time it will show the 0 penalty. I highly doubt they're making some kind of exception for him.

It has to be because Roger didn't play Rotterdam. Because of that he can say that he has a nagging back injury that has lasted for more then a month. Nadal can't say that because he was injured in Rotterdam less then a month ago.

The rule is really stupid IMO, but I guess the ATP feels like they need these measures to keep top players from lying about injuries so they can go hang out on the beach or whatever. There may have been players in the past who did this, but it is really unfortunate that it affects a hardworking champ like Nadal.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That's the only thing I can think of that makes sense. I don't it matters the Nadal was in Rotterdam less than a month before Dubai. I think what matters is that both DC and IW start less than a month after Rotterdam final, so he cannot claim that he was out for an entire 30 days. Nadal's camp is screwing his scheduling once again. There was never a point to scheduling both Rotterdam and Dubai, especially when it is required to play a 500 event after the USO.

Yeah. That's the only thing I can think of that makes sense. I don't it matters the Nadal was in Rotterdam less than a month before Dubai. I think what matters is that both DC and IW start less than a month after Rotterdam final, so he cannot claim that he was out for an entire 30 days. Nadal's camp is screwing his scheduling once again. There was never a point to scheduling both Rotterdam and Dubai, especially when it is required to play a 500 event after the USO.

Click to expand...

So you find it fair that a player should be rewarded for playing fewer tournaments to begin with and then withdrawing? Sorry but that doesn't make sense at all.

they are obviously not gonna say the rules dont work for roger... like the players can sue atp if they do that. Roger did say he was sitting out of davis cup and and everythign else he was supposed to play after the AO which is a month before dubai so the real of dropping a tourney last minute penalty didnt apply. Altho its a dumb rule all the players knew about it and its gonna happen to alot of them by the end of the year.

So you find it fair that a player should be rewarded for playing fewer tournaments to begin with and then withdrawing? Sorry but that doesn't make sense at all.

Click to expand...

he didnt say that... how many tourneys u play in is ur own business, whos getting rewarded for it?? for not playing u still get 0 but for dropping out a week or 2 before it starts get a 0 that cant be replaced. its a dumb rule imo really.

he didnt say that... how many tourneys u play in is ur own business, whos getting rewarded for it?? for not playing u still get 0 but for dropping out a week or 2 before it starts get a 0 that cant be replaced. its a dumb rule imo really.

Click to expand...

Yes, he said that the rule applied to Nadal (and not to Fed) because Nadal played Rotterdam while Federer played nothing since AO. If that's the case Federer is rewarded (no 0 pointer) for playing less. I agree this is real dumb.

Federer didn't play Rotterdam and Nadal did. So Federer can allege that his injury has been verifiable since the end of the Aussie Open. Nadal played a tournament less then a month ago and was injured there so he cannot claim the same as Federer. It's the only reason I can think of.

Click to expand...

Federer played the final on 1st february and dubai tourney started on 23rd. This is less than a month. Shouldnt federer get the same 0 pointer--- or is it from start of Australian open jan 19th.
Federer always seems to get the rules ,draw and schedule in his favour- perhaps we can make a movie on this conspiracy theory

Federer played the final on 1st february and dubai tourney started on 23rd. This is less than a month.

Click to expand...

I'm presuming that if the injury rules him out of playing competitive tennis for a time period after the tournament he missed as well that would count towards the 30. In Nadals case I wonder what would have happened if he'd pulled out of Dubai and the Davis Cup and not played till IW.

I'm more puzzled about Verdasco actually, he's not played competitively since the AO right?

Federer always seems to get the rules ,draw and schedule in his favour- perhaps we can make a movie on this conspiracy theory

Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. The game evolves around Federer. They knew that Nadal always plays injured, so they figured having that 30 day window would bite Nadal more than Federer. It worked out just as we planned. :evil:

"All direct acceptance players at the time of the entry deadline who do not play will receive a 0-pointer in their ranking.

A player who is out of competition for 30 or more days, due to a verified injury, will not receive any penalties".

The entry deadline is 6 weeks before the start of the tournament so if some player gets injured in the previous 6 weeks and can't play the tournament but it's not a 1 month injury (Nadal-Rotterdam) he receives a penalty in the rankings.
It's a complete non sense. It's not right to penalize someone who can't play a tournament because of an injury.
I guess the ATP wanted to avoid players faking injuries and withdrawing from tournaments in the last minute but this rule is completely unfair to players with legit injuries. If someone is injured and he can verify it, he shouldn't be fined despite the date of the injury.

And adding more fuel, Federer withdrew from Dubai in the previous week alleguing a back injury that didn't let him play at 100% but Federer didn't receive a 0 pointer penalty in the rankings.

Why? I guess it's because he showed up at the players party in Dubai and the ATP sees it as a promoting event activity. I can't think of any other reason but I would like to know if there is one.
This is also ridiculous. We know Federer resides and practices in Dubai for a good part of the season but the ATP cannot expect that players who live thousands of miles away go all the way to Dubai just for a promoting event activity. Bottom line is Federer didn't receive a penalty in the rankings because he resides in Dubai whereas Nadal and Verdasco received a penalty because they live too far away from Dubai.

This rule means that Nadal, Verdasco and Roddick (he also got a 0 pointer but it was his own decision not to play in Dubai) cannot gain ranking points from their best 4 ATP 500 results, only from their best 3, because that 0 pointer will not drop until next year.

Davis Cup results also count in the ATP 500 category rankings wise so it's possible that Davis Cup ranking points are not countable for these players.

There is also another 0 pointer penalty for players who don't play an ATP 500 event after the US Open. I find this rule ridiculous as well. Why make it mandatory after the US Open (when all players are more tired) and not before? So if Nadal, Verdasco or Roddick don't play an ATP 500 event after the US Open they will get two 0 point penalties and only their best 2 results in 500 events will count in the rankings, even if they played more ATP 500 events than other players before the US Open.

The ATP wanted to promote these 500 events but the rules they made for that are a complete and unfair mess. This is probably the last legacy of De Villiers. Does the ATP even consider the players opinions when making these rules? I doubt so. Players should give a step forward, voice their opinions and have more weight in decisions. ATP is nothing without players. What is the Players Council for?

Click to expand...

What part of this rule states that the 30 days of being out of competition has to occur all before the tournament missed due to injury?

Shouldn't the "0" (if added at the time of the tournament in question if the verified injury is less than 30 days old) be deleted as soon as 30 days of noncompetition "due to a verified injury" has elapsed?

Otherwise, the rule would be illogical, because it would be requiring a player (example Nadal at Rotterdam) to know ahead of time that he was going to be injured in the future (in this case less than 30 days before Dubai), which is of course impossible.

Therefore, it would be impossible to follow the rule. So, if that interpretation were true, the rule would be logically absurd and would be a self-contradiction, because if players knew ahead of time that they were going to be injured in a particular tournament, then they obviously would not play in that tournament. And if players did not play in tournaments in order to not be injured in those tournaments, then any tournament in which an injury WOULD HAVE occurred would not be played in by those players who avoided injury by not playing in those tournaments. Therefore, that interpretation of the rule is self-contradictory, illogical and self-refuting, because even LESS tournaments would be played in than were played in before that rule (or at least that interpretation of the rule) was made.

I understand the intention of this rule and agree with it. Players routinely drop out of tournaments at the last minute claiming an injury and they have no problem getting a doctor to say they need rest. Then they pop up the next week ready to go, looking no worse for wear. Something had to be done and this rule, while not perfect, is as good as any. Federer hasn't played in awhile and is skipping the Davis Cup this weekend, so his "injury" is OK. Nadal is playing DC this weekend, did not sit out the 30 days, so he loses. There's no preferential treatment for Federer. Case closed.

Federer hasn't played in awhile and is skipping the Davis Cup this weekend, so his "injury" is OK. Nadal is playing DC this weekend, did not sit out the 30 days, so he loses. There's no preferential treatment for Federer. Case closed.

Click to expand...

Well said. I think Nandomania's point can be validated that they do take into account time after the skipped tournament. Clearly if Nadal is playing multiple tournaments within 30 days with one skipped in the middle of this due to injury, then his injury is not that bad.

I understand the intention of this rule and agree with it. Players routinely drop out of tournaments at the last minute claiming an injury and they have no problem getting a doctor to say they need rest. Then they pop up the next week ready to go, looking no worse for wear. Something had to be done and this rule, while not perfect, is as good as any. Federer hasn't played in awhile and is skipping the Davis Cup this weekend, so his "injury" is OK. Nadal is playing DC this weekend, did not sit out the 30 days, so he loses. There's no preferential treatment for Federer. Case closed.

Well said. I think Nandomania's point can be validated that they do take into account time after the skipped tournament. Clearly if Nadal is playing multiple tournaments within 30 days with one skipped in the middle of this due to injury, then his injury is not that bad.